Bijender vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-29722-2026 [1]
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP-29722-2026
Date of decision: 11.09.2026
Bijender ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Naveen Jhajholia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been
made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing of impugned order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-10) vide
which Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat had dismissed the
representation of the petitioner and further ordered the eviction of
the petitioner, without taking into consideration the facts of the case,
AND/OR
To stay the dispossession as well as demolition of house of
petitioner, keeping in view of sequel of facts mentioned below.
AND/OR
For the issuance of any other appropriate order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, a perusal of impugned order dated 21.08.2026 would show that
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.09.15 09:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-29722-2026 [2]
no specific reason has been given for rejecting the case of the petitioner and
thus, the impugned order is against law and deserves to be set aside. It is
submitted that the petitioner had purchased the house in the year 2021 by
entering into an agreement to sell and in view of the same, the impugned order
be set aside.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paper book.
4. It is not in dispute that the Gram Panchayat had filed an
application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 presently known as Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1961”) against the present
petitioner and two other persons and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the said
application was allowed and eviction order was passed against the petitioner. It
is further not in dispute that the said order was upheld by the Collector vide
order dated 27.03.2025 and further by the Commissioner vide order dated
26.11.2025 and against the said three orders, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ
Petition No.36820 of 2025 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Division
Bench of this Court in the following terms:-
“3. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press
the challenge made to the aforesaid three orders passed by the
A.C., Collector and the Commissioner and that he would be
satisfied if this petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents-authorities to consider his aforesaid alternate prayer .
4. The afore alternative prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
is found to be reasonable and therefore, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Gram Panchayat to
first consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.03.2025
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.09.15 09:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-29722-2026 [3]
(Annexure P-8) and if a favourable recommendation is made by
the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner , then such
recommendation be considered by the Collector, Sonepat in terms of
Section 5A(1A) of the 1961 Act, in accordance with law.
5. The needful be done within four months from today.
6. Till the afore decision is taken and conveyed to the petitioner
status quo with regard to the petitioner’s possession on the disputed
land shall be maintained.
09.12.2025”
5. A perusal of the same would show that the petitioner had not
pressed the challenge to the eviction order and thus, the eviction order has
attained finality and respondent-Gram Panchayat as well as competent
authority were directed to consider the petitioner’s application under Section
5A(1A) of the Act of 1961.
6. The Gram Panchayat, vide Resolution dated 17.06.2026, rejected
the application of the petitioner after observing that khasra No.299, where the
land of the petitioner is situated, was reserved for public purpose and had
further observed that the document which was placed on record to meet the
condition that the house of the petitioner was constructed prior to 31.03.2004
was only an electricity bill which was of the year 2025. The Gram Panchayat,
thus, did not rightly recommend the case of the petitioner as apparently no
document or proof was produced by the petitioner to show that any house
much less residential house was constructed by the petitioner prior to
31.03.2004. In fact, the case of the petitioner before this Court is that he had
purchased the property by virtue of the agreement dated 27.03.2021 and thus,
the right of the petitioner, even as per his own case, is subsequent to
31.03.2004. Moreover, no such agreement has been attached with the present
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.09.15 09:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-29722-2026 [4]
petition. There is nothing highlighted on behalf of the petitioner before this
Court to show that there was any house much less house constructed prior to
31.03.2004 in which the petitioner might be residing and thus, one of the
essential conditions of Section 5A(1A) of the Act of 1961 and the SOP has not
been met. Even relevant jamabandi with respect to khasra No.299 has not been
annexed and thus, it cannot be remotely stated that the Resolution passed by
the Gram Panchayat was not in accordance with law. Order dated 21.08.2026
specifically records that the Gram Panchayat has not recommended the case of
the petitioner and one of the mandatory condition for allowing the application
of the petitioner for purchase is recommendation of the Gram Panchayat and
thus, the said reason mentioned in the impugned order is sufficient reason for
rejecting the case of the petitioner. As already observed, the Gram Panchayat
has rightly not recommended the case of the petitioner.
7. A perusal of Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which provision has been inserted by virtue of
an amendment made in the year 2024 and which is sought to be relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner does not give the petitioner any vested
right to claim transfer of ownership of land which admittedly is in his
unauthorized occupation. The said Section 5A(1A) of the Act of 1961 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“4. After sub-section (1) of section 5A of the principal Act,
the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:-
“(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1),
a Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the State
Government, transfer its non-cultivable land in shamilat deh by
sale to the inhabitant of the village who has constructed on or
before the 31st March, 2004, a house or part thereof alongwith
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.09.15 09:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-29722-2026 [5]
open space upto twenty five percent of the constructed area, both
put together not exceeding five hundred square yards and not
causing any obstruction to traffic and other public utilities and
also not a land reserved for pond or any other water body or
revenue rasta entered as such in revenue record, at the rate not
less than the market rate, to be determined in such manner, as
may be prescribed.”. ”
A perusal of the above-said provision would show that the same
is an enabling provision, enabling the Panchayat, with the prior approval of the
State Government, to transfer non-cultivable land in shamilat deh by sale to the
inhabitants of the village under certain conditions. Further the above provision
enables the sale to the inhabitant of the village only in case the construction has
been made on or before 31.03.2004, which admittedly has not been proved in
the present case.
8. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, there is
no merit in the present writ petition and thus, the same is dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
11.09.2026
Pawan
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.09.15 09:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document